STATE LAWMAKERS MAKE ANOTHER GRAB: Across the Board Control of Local Government Authority
Recently an amendment was added to an otherwise benign piece of legislation before the State and Local Subcommittee of the House (HB471) and Senate (SB513). This amendment radically rewrites the relationship between state and local governments where infrastructure supporting private development is concerned. The bill, or the so-called "Tennessee Landowner Bill of Rights," interferes heavily in the zoning, approval, and permitting process in ways that creates enormous uncertainty and risk for local governments seeking to partner with developers and landowners to make important infrastructure improvements.
As written, the amendment only applies to Metropolitan Governments in Tennessee, of which there are few. This interference in the largest economic driver of the region unfairly impacts Davidson County’s ability to collect necessary fees for infrastructure improvements. Communities like Franklin and Murfreesboro would, for no clear reason, be free to charge such fees. At base, this amendment fundamentally disadvantages Metro Nashville’s ability to plan its growth, especially compared to other communities within its MSA.
Additionally, the radical new dynamic this amendment would create between Metro and developers, the end result will be a shifting of the burden of infrastructure costs onto Metro taxpayers. It is not hard to imagine the ballooning of infrastructure costs and the immediate pressure this will put on local property taxes. The expansive growth of Metro Nashville will compound this pressure with every large development. Perhaps worse, this could disincentivize investments in sidewalks, transit, and utility restoration, leaving parts of the city deteriorating in close proximity to new developments. In short, Metro taxpayers will be faced with the terrible choice of higher taxes or worse infrastructure.
The amendment specifically calls out Community Benefit Agreements for criticism and attempts to stigmatize their use as a policy tool by Metro Government. While this may seem to universally advantage developers, and of course it does, the consequence of eliminating this tool will increase the animosity between existing residents and new development. If there are no CBAs, an existing neighborhood’s only recourse is opposition to developments rather than a negotiated agreement that satisfies community concerns.
We urge you to send a letter to committee members asking them to vote NO on SB513/HB471.
